Tuesday, April 30, 2013

As
promised, here is the second part of my book review of Kolakowski's Is
God Happy?, which happens to be two-parted itself. There was such a
wealth of information, knowledge and ideas that a review to do the
book full justice would have had to be as long as (or longer than)
its collected essays.

In
fact, it has been harder here to come up with a unified position
since the writings span a lifetime of thought, reflection and
experience, and the enemies are not communist authorities, but
something that hits much closer to home: organized religion, politics, and
atheism.

Defining
God and the Position of the Church

When
it comes to communism, Kolakowski is as clear as day in his
convictions and pronouncements; when he is writing about religion the
lines become obscure and ambivalent. My overall impression is that he
has some sympathy for religious beliefs and spirituality, but that
he is highly critical of the Church as the head of
religious institutions.

One
of the main caveats of religion is a lack of a clear definition when
it comes to its supreme head, the God deity itself. It is generally
good scientific practice to first define something before one starts
making any sort of assumptions or even evaluations on the matter.

And
we are immediately at an impasse. How do we effectively describe the
indescribable? If we say God cannot be defined in words or nature,
then the conversation immediately comes to a halt. There seems to be
no clear consensus or understanding on the issue.

If
I claim to believe in God, the very same notion is so emotionally and
conceptually charged that we will, more likely than not, end up
talking about two completely different entities. Throw in the
variables of Jesus, the Old versus the New Testament, Catholics
versus Protestants, and our conversation will be endless and
essentially pointless, in the sense of not leading to any specific
point or direction.

Yet
God has been traditionally shelved under the omni-umbrella
characteristics, the trio of omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient.
And already the philosopher will shout out: Well, what about the
problem of evil? I have given different possible answers to this
issue in my post Three Unusual Solutions to the Problem of Evil, but Kolakowski gives the simplest one
yet.

According
to this Polish intellectual, it is possible for such a God to create
a physical world that may be considered, to re-instate the much
criticized image of Leibniz, the “best of possible worlds.” Since
we expect God not to do things in haphazard fashion, and he
presumably created the world at his leisure in seven days (the time
unit “days” refers to the heavenly or eternal realms, meaning a
rather very long time), then we can safely assume that the world is (in
fact, it is said so explicitly) created according to his liking.

Therefore,
since God has made the rules, there is no reason to expect him to
break them himself soon or anytime at all. In other words, God could be
either unable (willingly shutting himself out of the process) or
unwilling to break physical laws, and hence his perceived lack of
interference (which is often equated with indifference). If he
interferes to change the laws he has created in the first place, he
would break what he had deemed his own approved laws, and hence give
the impression that his laws are actually fallible, i.e. not perfect
to begin with.

And
to continue this logical chain, if God has created something fallible
(we are leaving any mention of nemesis out of the equation), then he
would be contradicting himself both in the act of creation and the act
of interference; he would be seriously undermining the definition we
have agreed upon to be worthy of God. We might even say that the
physical laws themselves are the miracle but breaking them would only
create a tautological mess, a miracle upon a miracle. (Do two
miracles make an ordinary event?)

But
enough of definitions and speculations about his characteristics, and
let us look at what God asks us to do. God expects us to worship him,
to follow his commandments and to trust and love him. In the Old
Testament, the jealous God has and insists on a monopoly of worship.
There is only one God and all his people are given explicit rules in
the form of commandments. Straying from them would mean not only
alienating themselves from God but also deservingpunishment and
God's anger.

Religion,
in this view, is a type of business contract with God; his subjects
must accept the terms and conditions and may, in return, expect
certain kinds of rewards and privileges from the deity. In other
words, strictly sticking to the laws will not elicit punishment,
whereas breaking this contract would lead to one's dismissal of this
sought-after and auspicious religious circle. The Catholic Church has
taken over this power and position of gatekeepers, and its
authorities are believed to ensure, through rituals and actions, that
a given member of the flock is and continues to be deserving of God's
acceptance.

But
according to the Renaissance humanist version, influenced strongly by
Erasmus and built upon the writings of St. Paul, there is another
dimension to religion, namely the personal relation of love, based on
trust and faith instead of control and the fulfillment of obligations.
Such a personal relationship would undermine the position of the
Church as an authorized intermediary.

In
fact, Erasmus turned to previous writers and thinkers to shed more
light on his ideas of Christianity. Seeing human nature not as mere
vessels or agents of sin but rather as capable of achieving moral and
intellectual achievements, Erasmus saw little distinction between
believers and so-called pagans. In fact, we owe many modern concepts
of Christianity to him; he was the one who further christianized
the writings of Plato and turned Socrates into the prototype of the
Christian martyr.

Erasmus
was different from St. Paul and Calvin in his more positive,
optimistic and embracing depiction of and attitude towards humans.
Yet he also differed from the ideas of the Reformation initiated by
Martin Luther because Erasmus believed in a Christianity without
dogma or rituals. Although Luther rebelled against the corruption of
the Catholic Church, he ended up creating his own stifling version of
religion since it included a similar integrated structure. In other
words, the Reformation was replacing one church with another leading to
the similar set of problems that organized religion is fraught with.
A church is a church nonetheless and needs dogma to validate and
propagate itself.

The
Stagnation of the Church and the Unhappy Atheist

One
of the main concerns of Kolakowski's writing on religion includes the
idea of living in a godless world that is still obsessed with
religion, even when denying it. This modern world also lacks the
means and methods to replace God or the Absolute with anything of
equal or similar value.

In
fact, since God's death sentence, so sternly and unequivocally
pronounced by Nietzsche, the atheist lacks a moral compass or
purpose. There is little to hold onto in a world that has killed God.
It has changed the general outlook and philosophy and has made most
people gloomier and more pessimistic. One can compare the godless
world imagined by Diderot with the one envisioned by Camus or Sartre,
or the nihilistic world of Kafka, and one sees that there is an even
stronger sense of alienation both within oneself and one's
relationship with the world.

These
fluctuations in outlook may also be the product of a changing society
that has altered dramatically since the industrialization. These
large scale changes have progressively led us towards our modern
conception of fear and dread, and the threat of mass destruction and
annihilation. Yet one of the main problems of the Catholic Church has
been its lack of ability to address these concerns and social
problems. While the world around us has changed drastically, the
Church has not managed to successfully accommodate those changes into
its fabric or philosophy.

For
example, in times where science has been codified and accepted as a
main source of knowledge, rituals and actions like prayers may be
interpreted as counterproductive since they elicit and encourage
superstitious behaviors. In a world that is built on and around the
foundations of science and of cause and effect, it seems odd that
using a supposedly right technique to ask an imaginary deity for help
could lead to a desired outcome.

In fact, I find it abhorrent that certain people would shun modern
medicine and rely on prayers only to cure diseases. Although
Kolakowski is more critical of prayer and has somewhat differing
ideas from what constitutes superstitious behavior, in my opinion,
it is most helpful to have a combination of both approaches.

But
he has a point in claiming that scientific theology is the worst kind
of mistake regarding religion. The moment the Church tries to imitate
science, it loses not only its foothold and power, but it also
becomes nonsensical and shoots itself in the foot. This leads to
instances of pseudo-science; creationism would be its illustriously
infamous shining example, the beacon of absurd knowledge.

In
fact, the Church should have stuck to its own guns (to continue the
metaphor of foot-shooting) and insisted on faith instead of its futile attacks on science and its desperate
attempts to gain ground in the fields of science. This is an unevenly
configured battle because religion can never surpass science or
scientific theories.

What
is worse is the Church's preoccupation and involvement with political
matters. A Church founded on principles and concerns of the eternal
realms should not identify or align itself with politics, since those
matters are “profane” and of the world of the senses; they are
not of God's jurisdiction. As Jesus clearly made the distinction, one
ought to render unto Caesar what belongs to him and to God what is
important to his realm. Politics should stay out of religion and vice
versa.

Whenever
this is not the case, God becomes transformed into a tool or empty
mouthpiece, an object of human manipulation towards temporal and
non-eternal realms. As a result, the Church and Christian communities
would turn into a political party with God as its recruiting
instrument. That is a situation that Kolakowski aptly describes as
“godlessness in disguise.”

But
as we can see, the modern world is obsessed with the lack of God.
Even churches and religions feel a certain void and try to replace it
with more involvement in things that are unrelated to church matters.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have a growing number of
unhappy atheists, people with a general lack of faith trying to
desperately replace religion with humanism, rationalism, science or
what-have-you.

This
leads to caricatures of worship. The monopoly of the Old Testament
may have ended but now we worship practically anything to reach
momentary satisfaction. We adore and worship everything from money,
sports, to movie stars to fill this gap of faith, this void within
our modern selves.

But
it is difficult, not to say impossible, to replace the Absolute with
something that is finite and limited. All those temporary solutions
will fade away leaving us emptier and hungrier for more. It becomes a
vicious cycle that keeps undermining and eroding our own sense of
identity leading to a fabricated and insubstantial sense of self.

The
power of religion cannot be forgotten or fully erased, and since we
cannot forget God, whether we created him or not in the first place,
he will be always present in the back of our minds, even - or
especially when - we try to reject or forget him.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Just
a few days ago I finally gave in to the pressures of consumer
culture: I bought an iPhone. I had resisted rather successfully for a
number of years. I felt that technology was getting more and more
complex and there were too many functions complicating, not
simplifying modern life.

For
example, a cellphone is convenient yes, but its main purpose is to
make and receive calls. Why would we need to take pictures, use
social media, surf the net and download a host of different apps and
gadgets? All this I considered technological clutter. It was not only
unnecessary but highly distracting.

Moreover,
it was not merely a general trend; it was the fangs of consumer
culture reaching into our souls and pockets. Everybody (except me)
had a smartphone, and I looked old-fashioned with my simple version
of a cellphone (In fact, I had asked for a beeper, but the provider
just smiled and took me for a nostalgic buffoon).

Consumer
culture is a smart concept I admit. Companies reach deep inside of us
and claim that they can help us fill the void within. Their products,
they say, will bring us happiness. Once we spend our money on them,
they come up with a new, a better and improved, a faster and more
versatile gadget, the next number up the technological chain, and
they say that this new product will make us even happier than the
first.

At
the same time, there is also a significant element of cultural peer
pressure to deal with. Your friends have the latest model with all
its new tricks and gimmicks, and you are still using the supposedly
obsolete version yourself. So you feel the need to “update”
yourself to their level and not fall behind in this technological
race.

It
is also creating some pressure on companies themselves to come up
with new innovative gadgets. You are only as good as your latest
book, movie or iPhone. The competition heats up and even companies
feel the pressure of having to keep up at a very fast pace,
especially when it comes to technology.

So
I have fallen into the trap of consumer culture, have become their
latest victim. It is rather ironic because I used to give diatribes
against consumer culture using Peter Singer's ideas as my erudite
support. I wanted others to understand and see the futility of such a
culture, that we have substantially more than we need and that we
could use the extra money that we waste on those products to follow
the voice of our conscience and help humanity.

It
is unfair to have all those gadgets in one country and in another to
have millions of people starving to death. (The same applies in terms
of food itself, people spending millions on diet pills or suffering from
obesity, while the other parts of the world are malnourished to the
bone.) This money could be saved instead of wasted on items we do not
really need, and it could be used to help save people's lives. In
other words, we are talking about a moral deed and not a shallow
experience of happiness or vanity on our side.

And
yet, I have to tone down my rhetoric so as not to become an example
of hypocrisy since I am also wasting money on gadgets that are not
necessary for my general use and well-being, i.e. the iPhone. I do believe that
we have become ensnared or enslaved by modern fashion and consumer
culture. Yet in a way, I must say that I also understand the reasons
why that happens.

The
iPhone, for example, is not only handy, convenient, filling my idle
moments while waiting at the bus stop, but it also gives me a certain
dose of happiness. In another way, I feel more connected to the
hordes of people who are constantly checking and rechecking their
smartphones, a technological version of grooming, I suppose. I feel
part of them now; I understand them better. The same way, I was
sternly against iPads until my son asked for one and I recognized its
value.

I
also have come to understand the urge or rather addiction of wanting
to constantly reach for one's phone to check God knows what. It is
not merely a fidget; take the smartphone away from people, and they
will go through symptom withdrawal. It is an addiction like any
other. I already had a similar experience when I had to go without
Internet for a day (it was horrible!) but now to have connection to
the world wide web at my fingertip wherever I am is supreme bliss
indeed!

In
this case, the romantic old-fashioned and traditional version of
myself has to give in to the modern technological side. It will
affect my outlook. It will change my conversation habits. It affects
interactions and relationships. But it is also something that has
been ongoing, a continuous progression and extension of the digital
age.

I
miss the days of my youth where I had pen pals. I would sit down and
write a letter of four or five pages. It came from a
deeper voice within me right there visible in my own handwriting. I
used to await with excitement the arrival of the post to see if I had
gotten a response from a friend. I am still at times anxious to see
what the post will bring, but nowadays it is mostly bills.

I
check my email with the same fervor and excitement althougha lot of my
emails fall under the rubric of junk. I also check my blog stats on a
daily basis and blogs are one of the best parts and the most
rewarding bits and benefits of technology.

In
fact, nowadays I can reach people globally; I can post my latest
musings, doubts and accomplishments, and at a click, it will become
visible for the whole wide world. Such a thing would not have been
ever possible in a letter format. Copying letters by hand would take
eons and would reach a very limited number of people.

Also
I keep defining and redefining myself. I used to criticize technology
and consumer culture, but that has become a rather futile struggle.
It is not a loss necessarily, and I do not think I am a sell-out; I
rationalize that one can gain by keeping the “enemy” close. Put
differently, sometimes we will see the hidden values and benefits of
even those things we tend to criticize. As my students tend to say,
every coin has two sides. And nowadays, I am looking on from the
other side of the shores of technology.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

First
off, I would like to thank Basic Books for continuously sending me so
many quality books over the past year, and, in particular, this
unsolicited but quite precious and wonderful gem of a book! In fact,
this publishing company knows me well enough to send me books that
are both interesting and of educational value to me.

This
unexpected but welcome book with its intriguing title question “Is God Happy?”
immediately caught my eye and attention. It is a selection of essays
written by the Polish intellectual Leszek Kolakowski who had taught
and lived under the restraints of Soviet communism until his
expulsion from the Communist Party.

This
book is both heavy in weight and ideas and is broken up into two
parts (three actually, but the third one with its undecided and
unfocused title of “Modernity, Truth, The Past and some other
Things” could have simply been shelved under Miscellaneous).

The first half under the title “Socialism, Ideology and the Left”
contains various essays dealing with the ideology and impact of
communism, while the second part “Religion, God and the Problem of
Evil” is mainly concerned with religious topics, mostly from a
historical and philosophical perspective. Since this is quite a long and comprehensive book,
spanning essays written over a lifetime, I decided to offer a
two-part review with the second part appearing soon. So here we go with Part 1:

On
the Failures and Shortcomings of Communism

From
the get-go, Kolakowski does not mince his words and attacks communism
and leaves no ground of criticism unturned. He claims it is
impractical, cruel, bloody, manipulative, totalitarian, and
ideologically bankrupt. In his lifetime, living under communist rule,
he had to endure censorship and disciplinary measures on various
occasions.

At
the same time, Kolakowski equally attacks ex-communists, communist
sympathizers, and a number of socialist thinkers. Not even Marx is
spared from this critical rampage; Kolakowski claims
and admits that Marx may make good readingin the same way an
atheist might approach and enjoy the Bible.

Socialism
may have kennels of truth, but as a political way of life, it fails.
It fails because humankind is essentially born capitalist carrying
the seed of greed within them, but moreover and more importantly,
fraternity cannot be enforced upon others. You cannot force someone
to care about others.

Certainly,
Kolakowski has a point there, and he makes astute observations. His
own first-hand experience of living under communist rule in Poland
and later as an exile add a personal and emotionally-charged
touch to his writings. At the same time, it may embitter his view.

Although
I do not mean to justify communism or the communist state or any
government that suppresses human rights, Kolakowski struck me as
someone who is both biased and one-sided in his attacks, and, on some
occasions, he may accidentally throw out the baby with the bathwater
as he nixes most, if not all of Marxist writings; in fact, utopian
ideals are dismissed as childish wishful thinking or even damaging.
Depending on one's point of view this could be interpreted as either
cynical or realistic, or both.

I
found the first half of the book extremely interesting, and it filled
various gaps in my knowledge on the issues discussed. In fact,
Kolakowski closely and carefully analyzes the different spins,
interpretations and additions Marx's teachings have been given by
Lenin, Chairman Mao and others. However, he claims that each of their
readings and realizations are not necessarily incompatible with Marx.

Put
differently, they may not follow Marx to the letter but are faithful
to his overall spirit on the matter, something that would then entail
the dangerous possibility of totalitarian rule. Or, not
having read the primary source Das
Kapital
myself I am somewhat blindly putting my trust in Kolakowski's
scholarship, Marx does not unequivocally and clearly explain how such
a revolution and state would look like and how they could be
maintained, hence opening up a host of different speculations and
interpretations, including the totalitarian apparatus and state.

Totalitarianism
can come in different forms; that means it can be clothed in
different ideology, though the end effect is usually the same. For
instance, in one of his essays, he compares the German Nazis with
Stalinism. Both ideologies subject people to slavery. In the former,
they are driven by the cult of the leader towards a feeling of racial
superiority, an über-national sentiment of chauvinism.

Under
the rule of Stalin, they equally wanted to preserve the cult of the
leader, but in this case towards a united front versus the perceived
enemy, often vaguely referred to as imperialism. This was mainly
achieved and fostered by feelings of fraternity, harmony and unity
among all its citizens.

As Kolakowski remarks, fraternity that is
imposed by force lacks any merit and is, in fact, dysfunctional.
Also, he claims that while the Nazis were upfront and “honest”
(!) about their plans, intentions and philosophy, communism under
Stalin and others resorted to and freely used lies, deception, and
manipulation to control their people.

As
the term itself implies, totalitarianism includes total and complete
control over the political and social lives of its citizens. The best
example would be Orwell's dystopian book 1984
in which individuality was seen as suspect, subversive and even
harmful to the collective identity and was hence subjected to
approval and control by the ominous Big Brother.

As
in 1984,
in such a government the truth becomes a relative matter, namely what
the leader considers as true at a given moment. There is no such
thing as absolute truth, only what the leader deems as acceptable and
appropriate; hence truth becomes a fluid, malleable and
interchangeable matter.

Totalitarianism
also has its fair share of paranoia. It is paranoia both within and
without its borders. The Cold War, incidentally on both sides of the
spectrum, meant fortifying oneself against the negative influences
from the other. Totalitarianism hence needs a closed-border policy to
protect itself from the outside threat.

But
the threat can also be internal, emanating from its own citizens.
They too can be “infected” by the ideas of the enemy, hence the
necessity to create a state police and a flexible law system to
imprison and execute anyone who stepped out of line with the leader's
teachings and pronouncements. Censorship becomes just a matter of
fact, an essential and necessary tool for such a closed system, while
people become distrustful of each other and are encouraged to spy on
others and to report suspicious persons to the police.

All
of this is clearly unacceptable under democratic and
human-rights-oriented principles. The communist state then becomes a
life of servitude where the hired labor of capitalism may have been
eliminated only to be replaced by “forced” labor. Citizens in a
communist state then lose their fundamental rights and freedoms and
become puppets, or worse, slaves in a system in which they have no
say.

What
it is like to live under communist rule, I do not know but listening
to most people's accounts, I would rather pass. I cannot criticize
Kolakowski's ideas for what they are worth since I lack the necessary
background experience. It is similar to people who give me their fair
share of knowledge on parenting without ever having had children
themselves.

To those I would reply that although their intentions may
be good, they simply do not know what it is like to be a parent.
Studying something and experiencing it may complement each other, but
they certainly are not one and the same. For instance, French writer
and intellectual André Gide was a supporter of communism until he
actually visited the then-Soviet Union with its horrifying conditions
and misery.

I
often wonder why communism, which is based on humanitarian ideals of
equality should be so ignorant and dismissive of human rights. Again
the term of communism is an umbrella term including many factions and
styles; yet what may happen is that those who control the state will
fall prey to their own ambitions, a necessary and unavoidable human
by-product. The same way, there are few, if any, “good” dictators
as power does corrupt.

In
the Western world, communism has had a bad rap. Anybody who spoke of
support for the poor or any remotely socialist idea was often seen as
a threat to the status quo. Even though the Soviet Union has been
soundly laid to rest, there are still fragments of the paranoia
within the Western soul. We need to make sure that we also put to
sleep the McCarthy area and do not accuse our neighbors of
communism, although this has been mostly replaced by the new fear of
terror. The paranoia may be similar but they are two completely
different entities and ideologies.

It
is also interesting how there are often polarized views and opinions
on one person. Although most people would clearly condemn the actions
and behavior of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, the case of Hugo
Chavez was altogether different. Chavez also did not mince his words,
but there was some truth in them, and he had sympathizers and
followers all around the world.

It
seems to be a complex and difficult, but I think not impossible, task
to implement socialist ideals in a state that essentially guarantees
freedom and respect of human rights. Europe has had more success with
it on some grounds than North America, especially when it comes to
welfare and education.

The
United States, the self-declared land of the free, is often referred
to as a champion of human rights, especially if we exclude the Second
Amendment and Guantanamo from its current record, and the horrible
stain of slavery from its own dark ages.

However, there are currents
of idealism and democracy that have served as a model for the rest of
the world. Yet the reality is also that the gap between the rich and
the poor has probably never been as wide as it is nowadays. For
better or worse, capitalism favors those who have capital to begin
with, while communism, as we know it, is not an adequate antidote to
this problem.